if you could purchase a very good copy of your most favorite piece of art work,

A Rembrandt, a Vermeer, a Klee, a Kandinsky painting or any number of
statues .

and pay $15,000 instead of 1.8 mil or 3.6 mill.

to hang in your home to admire on a regular basis.

would it matter if you knew it was a knock off copy?

not a print but a replica ?

Yes.

If I could get a Vermeer or Rembrandt for 1.8 or 3.6 million I would borrow the money and sell it for the 200 plus million that they go for.

No, not a bit. Since I could never afford the real ones.

I wouldn't mind having a repro of a piece that I really liked, but I certainly wouldn't pay $15K for it. You can get good, high quality repros for a lot less than that.

https://www.brushwiz.com/artis...qzMcw9caAj1QEALw_wcB

My mother had two hobbies: Art and roses. She was talented and worked in pastels and oils. I believe she could have made a nice living at it if she applied herself. She dragged me to art shows, local art competitions and public exhibitions. I learned quite a bit about quality art and what it takes to produce it.
End result for me: I want lots of art! I tend to admire wildlife prints, military art and landscapes. And like guns, the good stuff is expensive and addicting. Framing these days is not cheap either. Indulge yourself if you can afford it. Art does not wear out!
And my mothers talent did not pass on to me.
I cant even draw a straight line.

I could see having a copy of one or 2 favorites that were not readily accessible. For instance there is a Remington painting that I greatly enjoy that happens to be at a museum that I pass on my way to work and visit every other week on average. If that were to change I could see myself getting copy.

Aside from that there are thousands of artist out there that produce great work in various price ranges. I spent about a year without a steady job after being laid off and during that time traveled across a good part of the U.S. attending art and art/craft shows as a vendor selling leather goods. For $10-15k I could easily fill my house with paintings, pottery, and sculpture items that I enjoy from people I met at those shows.

One of the best bits of advice I ever received has proven to be the truth, and I have in my collection everything from the first piece of art an artist (who will likely never break into the great light of public notice) ever sold, to one original piece by an internationally known artist.

"You never regret the art you buy, you regret the art you don't buy."

Buy with your heart, if it makes you feel good go for it. I am a big believer in supporting artists by buying original work. I do have some giclees (fancy name for art grade inkjet prints on canvas) that have been customized by the artist. But, hey, if you want a copy of a famous piece, go for it. My mom had a well done print of a Picasso sketch of Don Quixote, and she treasured it because it was a gift and it made her feel good. Art is all about making you feel and think. If you find work that does that, and it grabs you from the moment you see it, get it however makes you feel good.

Just be careful of "good copies" so you don't roll into the land of "forgeries".

To actually answer your question, I would know, and a copy as opposed to a print would make a difference to me. I won't spend 4 digits for something that wasn't original.

You can support a local talent for less than $15k. $5,000 goes a long way for supplies, rent, utilities, tobacco, and wine ...

quote:

Originally posted by sureshot45:
I could see having a copy of one or 2 favorites that were not readily accessible. For instance there is a Remington painting that I greatly enjoy that happens to be at a museum that I pass on my way to work and visit every other week on average. If that were to change I could see myself getting copy.

Aside from that there are thousands of artist out there that produce great work in various price ranges. I spent about a year without a steady job after being laid off and during that time traveled across a good part of the U.S. attending art and art/craft shows as a vendor selling leather goods. For $10-15k I could easily fill my house with paintings, pottery, and sculpture items that I enjoy from people I met at those shows.

That is a very good perspective, to wanting to support those artists.

Most museum art means very little to me... but I have paid local artists for their work.

I don't get hung up on names or what I'm told. If something catches my eye, I'll enjoy it. I've bought reproduction paintings, and a few prints here and there, but it's only even been for my enjoyment, not for status.

I would never spend $15K on a reproduction of anything. I know how much I could reproduce something like at work and they are tying the price of the original piece to the repro which has nothing to do with what it costs to reproduce it.

I guess that I was under some impression that skilled painters got more than $17.59 an hour and a free lunch.

and I also assumed that a skilled copier /painter would take two months ,instead of ten days to copy a master piece.

Interesting question that I misinterpreted when I first read it and got distracted by some of the following posts.

I have a few original paintings and enjoy them as originals, but none cost anything close to $15K. As for the question, though, I cannot think of something like a museum piece that I admire so much that I would be willing to purchase a copy—no matter how good—for that price. There are a few classical artists and subjects that I like a lot, such as Napoleon in his study by Jacques-Louis David. Ignoring any financial considerations and just focusing on the art, I would be happy to have and display the original, but I would not be willing to spend a large amount of money on a copy. A museum print is good enough for me to enjoy the artwork and subject.

Aside from investment value and impressing visitors (who could be impressed just as much by an excellent copy while the original was safely secured out of sight), the other major reason for someone who can afford a multimillion dollar original is simply pride of ownership. Such things are self-affirmations of many things from the fact that one is indeed wealthy enough to spend that kind of money on something of no practical use, to one’s taste in art, and frequently the satisfaction of a successful hunt.

How many members here who own S&W Registered Magnums would be satisfied with a modern recreation that was indistinguishable from the original? Years ago when Colt “reintroduced” several models of its blackpowder revolvers, I bought three—including one in stainless steel. Do I value them in the same way I would an original? No. Despite their authenticity (same manufacturer, same details [excepting the SS specimen, of course]), the pride of ownership would not be the same.

Give me the cheap print. True art is engraved on the heart, not on canvas. A mere suggestion, to me, invokes the feeling. Much like good poetry, one good reading will suffice. Shakespeares Henry V speech regarding St Crispin's day comes to mind.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
I guess that I was under some impression that skilled painters got more than $17.59 an hour and a free lunch.

and I also assumed that a skilled copier /painter would take two months ,instead of ten days to copy a master piece.

You are under the assumption that a skilled artist basically duplicates the original?

It doesn’t work like that anymore and that’s one reason I wouldn’t pay for it. The best works of art are reproduced down to the brushstroke first by using a 3D scanner to essentially copy it and then a 3D printer is used to “paint” it on the substrate.